ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: February 7, 2025
COURT FILE No.: DFO-15-13410-000-B1 (Toronto)
BETWEEN:
B.M.
Applicant
— AND —
J.G.
Respondent
Before Justice W. Kapurura
Heard on January 20, 21, 22 & 23, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on February 7, 2025
W. Gerald Punnett............................................................................ counsel for the applicant(s)
Tara J. Engel................................................................................... counsel for the respondent(s)
JUSTICE W. KAPURURA:
Part One – Introduction
[1] This trial was about the respondent’s (the mother’s) motion to change the final parenting and support orders of Justice E.B. Murray dated January 24, 2017 (the existing order) regarding the parties’ 11-year-old child, LG (the child).
[2] The existing order was made with the consent of the parties. It granted them joint custody of the child and a shared parenting schedule on a week-on-week-off basis. It also provided for a $0 set-off amount in child support payments.
[3] The mother seeks an order for sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the child. She requests an order dispensing with the applicant’s (the father’s) consent when applying for or renewing the child’s official government-issued identification documents. She asks the court for an order requiring him to pay her support for the child. She further seeks a restraining order against him.
[4] The child is currently in the primary care of the mother pursuant to a temporary order dated September 9, 2021. Another temporary order dated January 29, 2024, granted the father unsupervised parenting time with the child for three hours on Saturdays, with parenting exchanges occurring at Access for Parents and Children in Ontario (APCO). However, he has not exercised that parenting time as he disagrees with parenting exchanges taking place at APCO. He has not exercised in-person parenting time since March 2024.
[5] The mother seeks an order for the father to have parenting time with the child on alternate Saturdays for four hours, supervised at APCO. Her position is that all parenting clauses should be enforceable by the police.
[6] The father seeks sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the child. He asks the court to dispense with the mother’s permission when applying for or renewing the child’s official government-issued identification documents and when travelling with the child outside of Canada.
[7] The father seeks an order that the mother have parenting time with the child on alternate weekends, with pick-ups on Friday at 5:30 p.m. and drop-offs on Sunday at 5:30 p.m., with a parenting exchange location closer to his residence in Listowel, Ontario [1]. He further seeks an order requiring the mother to undergo drug and alcohol testing on a bi-weekly basis and to provide proof that her home is safe for the child.
[8] The father also seeks a restraining order against the mother and a police enforcement clause with respect to the parenting orders. He initially asked for child support in his draft order for trial. However, during the trial, he withdrew his support claim.
[9] The trial was scheduled for four days.
[10] The case was organized by the case management judge for a focused trial. The parties both testified. They each filed affidavits for their examination-in-chief. They both provided additional oral evidence and were cross-examined by each other.
[11] The mother called her mother (maternal grandmother), her adult son (the child’s half-brother, N), and a worker from Toronto CAS to testify on her behalf. They all provided affidavits for their examination-in-chief. Her additional witnesses were cross-examined by the father.
[12] The father called his partner, sister, and mother (paternal grandmother) to testify on his behalf. They all provided affidavits for their examination-in-chief. The mother cross-examined the additional witnesses.
[13] The court must determine the following issues:
a. Has there been a material change in circumstances that affects or is likely to affect the best interests of the child?
b. If so, what parenting orders are in the best interests of the child, having regard to all the relevant circumstances relating to the child's needs and the ability of the respective parents to satisfy them? In particular, what orders for primary residence, decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and incidents of parenting are in the child’s best interests?
c. What additional orders should the court make to address issues of family violence, if any, and allegations about social media and/or internet postings?
d. Should the court make an order for police enforcement of the parenting orders?
e. Has there been a change in circumstances justifying a variation of the support arrangements? Specifically, should the child support arrangements be retroactively varied based on the child’s residential arrangements?
f. If so, which parent is entitled to child support?
g. What is the presumptive start date when support should be changed?
h. Should the court deviate from the presumptive start date, and if so, when should support be changed?
i. Should the court grant either party’s request for a restraining order against the other?
j. If not, what communication and non-contact orders should be made?
... (rest of decision retained verbatim)